FIRST LAW

1. Chennai Port Trust Vs. Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association If on the undisputed facts, this Court has granted benefit to the canteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals then there is no reason that on the same set of undisputed facts arising in this case, the Court should not grant the benefit to the employees/workers in this case. It is more so when no distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua Indian Petrochemicals’s case. We are, therefore, in agreement with the approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below.

Administrative Law - Doctrine of Proportionality - In the realm of Administrative Law ‘proportionality’ is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities and reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise – the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities. De Smith also states that ‘proportionality’ involves ‘balancing test’ and ‘necessity test’. The ‘balancing test’ permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations. [A. P Industrial Inf. Corp. Ltd. Vs. S. N Raj Kumar, 10-04-2018]

Administrative Law - Application of Mind - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) without applying mind declined to restore record of rights (RoR) - Held, unsustainable. Lakshmamma v. Commissioner; Bangalore Development Authority, 2018 ALT (Rev) 114 : 2018 (3) KarLJ 316 : 2018 (5) Scale 246 : (2018) 5 SCC 760 : 2018 (3) Supreme 293 C.A. No. 4088 of 2010 28-03-2018

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 11. IBI Consultancy India v. Dsc, AIR 2018 SC 2907 : 2018 (3) ALT 57 : 2018 (3) ArbLR 181 : JT 2018 (4) SC 284 Arbit. Case (C) No. 53 of 2016 16-04-2018 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 33. Oswal Woollen Mills v. Oswal Agro Mills, AIR 2018 SC 1988 : 2018 (3) ArbLR 187 : 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 938 : 2018 (5) Scale 542 : 2018 (4) Supreme 605 C.A. No. 3776 of 2018 13-04-2018 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Ss. 34 & 42 - Companies Act, 2013 - Registration Act, 1908 - S. 17. Cheran Propertiees v. Kasturi and Sons, 2018 (3) ArbLR 228 : 2018 (6) Scale 267 : 2018 (4) Supreme 451 C.A. No. 10025 of 2017 24-04-2018 Arbitration - M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Object of the Legislation - Speedy Dispute Resolution Mechanism - the State must monitor timeliness so that arbitration proceedings do not take unduly long time. One to two years may be taken as reasonable time for the purpose. Essel Infra Projects v. St